| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Firehawk0220
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 151
Location: Dallas, TX.
|
 Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:32 pm Post subject: Corrected Executor |
 |
|
I don't know if anyone has done this. But I was going to use a ship of this class in an upcomming adventure, and I found out that the Star Wars Databank article had been updated to include the new size. I thought I'd make adjustments. I am sorry if this has been done before by someone else, but my search revealed nothing specific about this class of ship.
If someone has posted corrected stats, I'd love to see them and compare them. The numbers of weapons are taken as they are written off the Star Wars Databank and listed by arc.
Kuat Drive Yards Executor-Class Super Star Destroyer
Scale: Capital
Length: 19,000 Meters (19.0km) (As observed in ESB and ROTJ)
Skill: Capital ship piloting: Super Star Destroyer
Crew: Skeleton: 50,000 with command 7D; Total crew: 280,734
Passengers: 38,000 troops
Cargo Capacity: 250,000 metric tons
Consumables: 6 years
Hyperdrive Multiplier: x2
Hyperdrive Backup: x10
Nav Computer: Yes
Maneuverability: 0D
Space: 4
Hull: 20D
Shields: 16D
Sensors:
Passive: 75/1D+2
Scan: 150/3D+2
Search: 300/5D
Focus: 8/6D+2
Weapons: (Front Arc)
100 Turbolaser Batteries
Fire Control: 1D
Space Range: 3-15/35/75
Atmosphere Range: 6-15/70/150km
Damage: 7D
100 Heavy Turbolaser Batteries
Fire Control: 0D
Space Range: 5-20/40/60
Atmosphere Range: 10-20/80/120km
Damage: 10D
100 Ion Cannons
Fire Control: 4D
Space Range: 1-10/25/50
Atmosphere Range: 2-20/50/100km
Damage: 4D
50 Concussion Missile Tubes
Fire Control: 2D
Space Range: 2-12/30/60
Atmosphere Range: 0.2-1.2/3/6km
Damage: 9D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons: (Port Arc)
75 Turbolaser Batteries
Fire Control: 1D
Space Range: 3-15/35/75
Atmosphere Range: 6-15/70/150km
Damage: 7D
50 Heavy Turbolaser Batteries
Fire Control: 0D
Space Range: 5-20/40/60
Atmosphere Range: 10-20/80/120km
Damage: 10D
100 Ion Cannons
Fire Control: 4D
Space Range: 1-10/25/50
Atmosphere Range: 2-20/50/100km
Damage: 4D
75 Concussion Missile Tubes
Fire Control: 2D
Space Range: 2-12/30/60
Atmosphere Range: 0.2-1.2/3/6km
Damage: 9D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons: (Starboard Arc)
75 Turbolaser Batteries
Fire Control: 1D
Space Range: 3-15/35/75
Atmosphere Range: 6-15/70/150km
Damage: 7D
50 Heavy Turbolaser Batteries
Fire Control: 0D
Space Range: 5-20/40/60
Atmosphere Range: 10-20/80/120km
Damage: 10D
100 Ion Cannons
Fire Control: 4D
Space Range: 1-10/25/50
Atmosphere Range: 2-20/50/100km
Damage: 4D
75 Concussion Missile Tubes
Fire Control: 2D
Space Range: 2-12/30/60
Atmosphere Range: 0.2-1.2/3/6km
Damage: 9D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weapons: (Rear Arc)
50 Heavy Turbolaser Batteries
Fire Control: 0D
Space Range: 5-20/40/60
Atmosphere Range: 10-20/80/120km
Damage: 10D
50 Ion Cannons
Fire Control: 4D
Space Range: 1-10/25/50
Atmosphere Range: 2-20/50/100km
Damage: 4D
50 Concussion Missile Tubes
Fire Control: 2D
Space Range: 2-12/30/60
Atmosphere Range: 0.2-1.2/3/6km
Damage: 9D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Firehawk0220 on Sun May 21, 2006 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pel
Line Captain
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 983
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've never used the "family-sized" stats for the SSD. 8 km is plenty large for what it's used for in our games. Anything bigger than that is just obscenely huge. Might as well toss in a Death Star. 
_________________
Aha! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gry Sarth
Jedi
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 5304
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I prefer to save the awesome 17 km mark to the Eclipse-class.
_________________
"He's Gry Sarth, of course he has the stats for them." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hisham
Commander
Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Posts: 432
Location: Malaysia
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Firehawk0220. The stats look great. What are the firing arcs for the heavy turbolasers?
They finally updated the Databank information to reflect the Lucasfilm / ILM modelmakers' original intended size for the Executor, I see. That's good news.
_________________
The Enteague Sector | Cracken's Collection of Crackpots
In D6, of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Firehawk0220
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 151
Location: Dallas, TX.
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pel wrote: | | I've never used the "family-sized" stats for the SSD. 8 km is plenty large for what it's used for in our games. Anything bigger than that is just obscenely huge. Might as well toss in a Death Star. |
It isn't about it being plenty. Not at all. The problem is that the 8KM stats are incorrect. The movie clearly shows that the SSD is almost 11 times he size of the standard Imperial SSD. Anything less is simply not accurate.
Also, the Death Star is far worse than even that. As a result, the SSD wouldn't be nearly as bad or as much of a one sided fight. Also for the record, the adjusted Eclipse Class size in comparison to the Executor would put it's length at 35,000 Meters compared to Executor's 19,000.
The Emperor was anything but subtle. The Empires technology was always more advanced and was far more formidable than anything in the Rebellions arsenal. Though it may seem unfair to put the players up against things such as the Executor, they can win against such odds. In the movies the heroes fought and won against insurmountable adversity, and that is a common theme in the Star Wars universe.
I also fixed the original post to seperate the firing arcs so they'd be easier to read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gry Sarth
Jedi
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 5304
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How is it that the movie "clearly" show the Executor to be 11 times the size of a Star Destroyer? I don't remember any scene where we can be sure of each craft relative position so as to judge their relative size. For all we know, the SD can me closer or further away from the camera by thousands of kilometers.
We have a whole established set of info which puts that Super at 8 Km, the Sovereign at 15 km and the Eclipse at 17.5 Km. Why throw everything out of whack now?
_________________
"He's Gry Sarth, of course he has the stats for them." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
masque
Captain
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 626
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While the Eclipse and Sovereign are more massive than the Executor class, I believe the Executor is supposed to be longer in length. They mention it here http://www.theforce.net/SWTC/ssd.html and go into quite a bit of detail on the issue. I think we can probably use the corrected length for the Executor without affecting those other two.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gry Sarth
Jedi
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 5304
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alright, after reading through the Technical Commentaries and seeing as how the Databank and Wizards seem to have agreed on the reviewed length of the Super SD to be 19 Km, I can accept the relevance of this subject. It seems the Super really should have been 19 clicks long all along.
However, that opens up quite a can of worms. First there's the issue of "should the Super's stats be completely redone?". If those stats were made for an 8km-long vessel, than pretty much nothing in there would work for a 19km-long vessel. Not Hull, nor Shields, nor number of weapon emplacements, nor Crew, nothing. Or would it? Maybe we just change the size and leave it at that, at least that's what Wizards did.
Second, where does that leave us with the Sovereign and the Eclipse? I can't accept that they are "smaller but more massive ships". When the Eclipse was created, it was assigned a length of 17,5 Km because that said "it's over TWICE as long as that big-@$$ ship from the movies!!!". It was never supposed to be "smaller, yet more massive", it was supposed be unbelievably-frigging-huge...AND massive to boot! The Emperor's back, and he means business!
So, how do we deal with this? Assign the Eclipse a length of 40 Km? Completely redo its stats as well?
_________________
"He's Gry Sarth, of course he has the stats for them." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
masque
Captain
Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 626
Location: Houston, TX
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Eclipse and the Sovereign are larger, they're just slightly shorter (which is what I should have said, as opposed to "smaller". They're much bulkier, and can reign tons more destruction down. Length is the only thing the Executor-class has on them. One would think that the physics of structural integrity would impose an outside limit on how big a ship can be. I'm working from the assumption that the Executor-class is as long and thin as a ship can be. The Eclipse and the Sovereign are somewhat shorter in length, but much thicker and taller, which probably helps with the structural integrity of them. I don't think this conflicts with them being twice as "large" as the Executor, as they probably exceed that in mass, they just don't acheive it in length.
I would leave their stats alone, and use some midpoint between the Eclipse and the WEG Executor stats to determine true Executor stats. Firehawk's seem to be a good start.
_________________
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pel
Line Captain
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 983
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Say, does anyone have any idea how long the individual superlasers were in the Death Star? Since the Eclipse has one along its long axis, that would give us an excellent idea of how long it is.
_________________
Aha! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14173
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
From darn near the core, to the surface, so a little less than one radius of the DS..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Firehawk0220
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 151
Location: Dallas, TX.
|
| Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gry Sarth wrote: | How is it that the movie "clearly" show the Executor to be 11 times the size of a Star Destroyer? I don't remember any scene where we can be sure of each craft relative position so as to judge their relative size. For all we know, the SD can me closer or further away from the camera by thousands of kilometers.
We have a whole established set of info which puts that Super at 8 Km, the Sovereign at 15 km and the Eclipse at 17.5 Km. Why throw everything out of whack now? |
Because it is wrong.
http://www.theforce.net/SWTC/ssd5mile.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Firehawk0220
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 151
Location: Dallas, TX.
|
| Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gry Sarth wrote: | Alright, after reading through the Technical Commentaries and seeing as how the Databank and Wizards seem to have agreed on the reviewed length of the Super SD to be 19 Km, I can accept the relevance of this subject. It seems the Super really should have been 19 clicks long all along.
However, that opens up quite a can of worms. First there's the issue of "should the Super's stats be completely redone?". If those stats were made for an 8km-long vessel, than pretty much nothing in there would work for a 19km-long vessel. Not Hull, nor Shields, nor number of weapon emplacements, nor Crew, nothing. Or would it? Maybe we just change the size and leave it at that, at least that's what Wizards did.
Second, where does that leave us with the Sovereign and the Eclipse? I can't accept that they are "smaller but more massive ships". When the Eclipse was created, it was assigned a length of 17,5 Km because that said "it's over TWICE as long as that big-@$$ ship from the movies!!!". It was never supposed to be "smaller, yet more massive", it was supposed be unbelievably-frigging-huge...AND massive to boot! The Emperor's back, and he means business!
So, how do we deal with this? Assign the Eclipse a length of 40 Km? Completely redo its stats as well? |
The Eclipse and the Sovereign would have to be double the length of the Executor class. The typical adjustment that has generally become accepted on the web is that of 35,000 Meters long. So 35km would be the new size. I am not sure as to the size of the Sovereign specifically, but I would imagine that simply doubling the existing size would be the way to go.
And I definitely plan on redoing the Eclipse stats when I get a chance. I'd like the original stats though.
I am more than willing to correct as accurately as possible, all capital ship stats in Star Wars. I can do them in D20 and in D6.
The stats for the Executor above comes from the Star Wars Databank. The length, as well as the firing arcs for all the weapons, and their quantities are all taken from that page.
A comment on the fighter compliment of the Executor though, I think that 144 fighters (two wings) is a bit low. However, there aren't any confirmed landing bays that are seen on screen. The lack of such obvious landing bays is either an oversight on the part of the filmakers, or the Executor isn't intended to carry a huge amount of fighters. Rather it is intended to be a pure battleship which has a primary goal of taking out bases and capital ships as well as planetary defenses. Just some additional food for thought while we are on the subject of this majestic vessel.
| masque wrote: | The Eclipse and the Sovereign are larger, they're just slightly shorter (which is what I should have said, as opposed to "smaller". They're much bulkier, and can reign tons more destruction down. Length is the only thing the Executor-class has on them. One would think that the physics of structural integrity would impose an outside limit on how big a ship can be. I'm working from the assumption that the Executor-class is as long and thin as a ship can be. The Eclipse and the Sovereign are somewhat shorter in length, but much thicker and taller, which probably helps with the structural integrity of them. I don't think this conflicts with them being twice as "large" as the Executor, as they probably exceed that in mass, they just don't acheive it in length.
I would leave their stats alone, and use some midpoint between the Eclipse and the WEG Executor stats to determine true Executor stats. Firehawk's seem to be a good start. |
Their bulk is unquestionably insane. One can actually figure out the size of these ships with observation alone. Let's look at the Executor. Look at the bridge. It is the same shape and size as that of the normal Imperial/Imperator Class Star Destroyers, which in turn means that we have a basis for reference concerning the size of the craft.
This picture shows us that the ISD under the Executor is almost correctly proportional to the Executor. Confirming what I am saying. Almost anything shown or otherwise confirmed in the movies, really overrides anything printed or written.
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/cards/wide/fleet.jpg
Even the data bank acknowledges the changed size. What does that tell you?
Another note I'd like to make is that some people will find the increase in the Executors stats an unfair thing to subject your players to. To that I have to say: Luke, Han Solo and the others had to face such things and came out ok. And they faced worse, and continued to do so in the EU. That is what the concept of heroes is about. Overcomming huge adversity and obstacles is what it is all about.
Plus, it doesn't take a military genius or tactician to realize that the Executor moves like a dumb truck and makes a Mon-Calamari Star Cruiser seem to move like a Miata. Therefore if one takes a small fleet of Star Cruisers, one can assault the leviathan of a ship from the rear and greatly increase the chances of survival. And remember, the Executor was destroyed by a single A-Wing.
Nothing the Empire has ever constructed inlucding the the Death Star, the Eclipse I and II, or the Executor class are unbeatable. There is always a way.
Last edited by Firehawk0220 on Mon May 22, 2006 10:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pel
Line Captain
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 983
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's see...Based on the previous superlaser discussion, I calculated the Eclipse's length at 19 - 25 km, depending upon which DS used. Since a degree of miniaturization probably occurred, I'll stick to the lower end and keep the length published in the Dark Empire sourcebook.
_________________
Aha! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Firehawk0220
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 151
Location: Dallas, TX.
|
| Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pel wrote: | | Let's see...Based on the previous superlaser discussion, I calculated the Eclipse's length at 19 - 25 km, depending upon which DS used. Since a degree of miniaturization probably occurred, I'll stick to the lower end and keep the length published in the Dark Empire sourcebook. |
The ship would no doubt have to be at least 19km to 25km in order to accomodate the superlaser. That is absolutely correct. But there is no published data showing that the superlaser runs the entire length of that class of ship. In fact, it is far more likely that it doesn't in order to make room for the engines and the ships power source(s).
Use these stats if you want, or do not, but I think if you read the article on the link I posted above, you'll see that the original Executor stats we've all come to know are in fact wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
